MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2609276028 · doi:10.5539/jps.v6n2p38

Establishment of Callus Induction and Cell Suspension Cultures of Dendrathema Indicum var. Aromaticum a Scented Chrysanthemum

2017· article· en· W2609276028 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Liyan Jin, Yang Yang, Mingxue Gong, Jijia Wang, Neil O. Anderson, Miao He

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Plant Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAllelopathy and phytotoxic interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCallusSubculture (biology)Explant cultureSuspension cultureBiologyBotanyProtoplastShootHorticultureMurashige and Skoog mediumDry weightCell cultureIn vitroBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dendranthema indicum var. aromaticum is an important aroma plant in genus Dendrathema, and the establishment of callus cultures and cell suspension cultures is the basement of further protoplast fusion studies, which make it possible to breed new fragrant chrysanthemum. In this study, the effects of different plant growth regulating substances in different concentrations on callus induction were investigated with stem segments, leaves, petioles as explants. The results showed that the optimal explants were lower stem segments according to the percentage of callus formation, callus hardness, growth potential and shoot differentiation. The optimal induction mediums were MS supplemented with 1.0 mg.l-12.4 D and 0.2 mg.l-1 6-BA. The cell suspension culture system was established by using the subculture calli. The results showed that the suitable inoculum size was 2g and the suitable cell suspension culture medium was MS supplemented with 0.2 mg.l-1 6-BA and 0.5 mg.l-1 2,4-D. The time course of cell growth showed that the greatest cell fresh weight appeared on day 14 and the highest cell viability on day 3.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.457
Threshold uncertainty score0.226

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Plant StudiesSame topicAllelopathy and phytotoxic interactionsFrench-language works237,207